IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D07-907

Similar documents
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

Case 1:09-cv KMM Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/27/2010 Page 1 of 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL ACTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO CIV-COHN/SELTZER ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT S MOTION TO DISMISS

Case 0:14-cv KMM Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2015 Page 1 of 8

Filing # E-Filed 03/07/ :02:15 AM

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cr JAL-1. Plaintiff - Appellee,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

Order Code RS22038 Updated May 11, 2005 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Securities Fraud: Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo Su

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROW ARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2001

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS,

Case 0:16-cv CMA Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/18/2016 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 1D J. Nixon Daniel, III and Jack W. Lurton, III of Beggs & Lane, RLLP, Pensacola, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

Case 1:13-cv JIC Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2014 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D

ILLINOIS OFFICIAL REPORTS

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 5:17-cv JSM-PRL

Case 2:06-cv JCC Document 51 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

Fred Tromberg, James A. Kowalski, Jr., and Adam J. Kohl of the Law Offices of Tromberg & Kowalski, Jacksonville, for Appellee Commonwealth Bank.

Case 1:14-cv ML-LDA Document 26 Filed 12/09/14 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 285 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D v. Case No.

SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA

CASE NO. 1D In this tobacco case, jurors returned an almost $15 million verdict for

Case 0:17-cv XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/13/2017 Page 1 of 12

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D. C. Docket No CV-T-MSS.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. Case CIV-WPD ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS

United States District Court

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION

Case 0:15-cv BB Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2015 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 8:14-cv CEH-MAP Document 8 Filed 08/27/14 Page 1 of 22 PageID 56

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D

Case 4:12-cv MWB-TMB Document 32 Filed 11/15/12 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

26 th Annual IBA/IFA Joint Conference Managing Risks in International Franchising May 18-19, 2010 JW Marriott Hotel in Washington, DC.

Case 8:16-cv JDW-JSS Document 1 Filed 09/22/16 Page 1 of 20 PageID 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case , Document 53-1, 04/10/2018, , Page1 of 19

CASE NO.: 2014-CV A-O Lower Case No.: 2013-SC O

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

Supreme Court of Florida

Case 5:18-cv TLB Document 1 Filed 11/14/18 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 1

Filing # E-Filed 05/08/ :47:12 PM

OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT

The Supreme Court Rejects Liability of Customers, Suppliers and Other Secondary Actors in Private Securities Fraud Litigation

Case No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NINTH CIRCUIT

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. CASE NO.: 5D

CASE NO. 1D J. Nixon Daniel, III, and Jack W. Lurton of Beggs & Lane, RLLP, Pensacola, for Appellant.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 8:06-cr EAK-TGW-4. versus

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D

Case 0:14-cv WPD Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/05/2014 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 7:18-cv Document 1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D

The Challenges For CEA Price Manipulation Plaintiffs

Case 9:14-cv JIC Document 148 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2015 Page 1 of 22

NO. CAAP IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAIfI

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA

Attorney for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER. EDGARDO RODRIGUEZ, an individual,

Follow this and additional works at:

CASE NO. 1D Bradley Guy Smith, Lakeland, and Bill McCabe, Longwood, for Appellant.

Case 1:17-cv FDS Document 1 Filed 02/23/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D10-764

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. CASE NO. 5D

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

OPINION BY JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. October 31, FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK John C. Morrison, Jr.

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Plaintiffs, (SAPORITO, M.J.) MEMORANDUM

A Short Guide to the Prosecution of Market Manipulation in the Energy Industry: CFTC, FERC, and FTC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ORDER AND REASONS

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

Case 2:16-cv LDD Document 30 Filed 08/08/17 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Emerging Issues in UDAP: Preemption. By: Travis P. Nelson 1

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Case 2:16-cv JHS Document 16 Filed 07/12/17 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA OPINION

Case 1:08-cv Document 44 Filed 03/23/2009 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES FOR REHEARING AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D

OF FLORIDA. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Henry H. Harnage, Judge.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 0:11-cv WPD.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:18-cv RJC-DSC ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

Transcription:

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2008 KC LEISURE, INC., Appellant, v. Case No. 5D07-907 LAWRENCE HABER, ET AL., Appellee. / Opinion filed January 25, 2008 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Renee A. Roche, Judge. Eric A. Lanigan and Roddy B. Lanigan of Lanigan & Lanigan, PL, Winter Park, for Appellant. Mark O. Cooper, of O'Neill, Liebman & Cooper, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee. MONACO, J. The appellant, KC Leisure, Inc., appeals the final order of the trial court dismissing with prejudice its fourth amended complaint against the appellee, Lawrence Haber. 1 Because we conclude that the complaint stated causes of action against Mr. 1 We also considered other issues in this controversy in Thorpe v. Gelbwaks, 953 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).

Haber for violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ( FDUTPA ), 2 and for fraudulent inducement, we reverse. This dispute involves the sale of a franchise by Relay Transportation, Inc., to KC Leisure. The franchise authorized KC Leisure to open a retail outlet in the Central Florida area for the sale and rental of electric vehicles. KC Leisure alleged that Mr. Haber was a stockholder and officer of Relay Transportation. Basically, KC Leisure asserts in its complaint that Mr. Haber and the other defendants, while acting in their capacities as corporate officers, directors and shareholders of Relay Transportation, communicated with each other both verbally and in writing about the disclosure requirements applicable to the sale of franchises to prospective purchasers. Mr. Haber is specifically alleged to have advised the other defendants in this connection and imparted information to them concerning the liabilities and penalties that might result from a failure to comply with the requirements. According to the complaint, however, Mr. Haber and the other defendants decided not to provide any of the disclosures mandated by state and federal authorities, despite knowing that the disclosures were required by law. KC Leisure further alleged that Mr. Haber and his co-defendants devised a scheme to provide KC Leisure with a license agreement, rather than a franchise agreement, so that they could obtain a $50,000 franchise fee from KC Leisure before actually creating and handing over a Uniform Financial Offering Circular and franchise agreement. KC Leisure purportedly entered into the license agreement and paid the $50,000 franchise fee to Relay Transportation, even though none of the disclosures had been 2 501.201-.213, Fla. Stat. (2005). 2

made. KC Leisure then alleges that it obtained and renovated retail space at its own expense and began operation of the franchise. Eleven months later it sought to rescind the agreement by written notice to Relay Transportation and Mr. Haber based on the failure of Relay Transportation to provide the disclosures in a timely fashion and on the fact that certain misinformation was contained within them once they were belatedly provided. When no relief was forthcoming, KC Leisure brought suit. The two-count complaint was not drafted with perfect clarity. In the first count, KC Leisure sought damages for violation of the FDUTPA against Mr. Haber and others. It alleged that the intentional failure to provide the disclosures set forth in 16 C.F.R. 436.1 constituted an unfair or deceptive act in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1). The foundation for the claim is the language found in section 501.203(3), Florida Statutes (2005), that states, among other things, that the term violation of this part means any violation of the FDUTPA and may be based on rules promulgated pursuant to the Federal Trade Commission Act or the standards of unfairness and deception set forth and interpreted by the Federal Trade Commission or the federal courts. The trial court dismissed count I with prejudice saying first that: [C]hapter 559.801 et seq. (2005), Florida s Sale of Business Opportunities Act ( The Act ) defines a business opportunity as the sale or lease of products, equipment, supplies or services sold to a purchaser to enable him to start a business under certain defined circumstances; however, the statute expressly excludes the sale of an ongoing business. Batlemento v. Dove Fountain, Inc., 593 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). In further reliance on the Batlemento case, the trial court then held that the FDUTPA only imposes liability on sellers and not their shareholders or individuals who act for the 3

seller. Thus, the trial court eliminated the statutory basis for the appellant s FDUTPA claim. In doing so, the trial court erred. The FDUTPA makes unlawful unfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. 501.204, Fla. Stat. (2005). As noted above, a FDUTPA claim may be based on rules promulgated pursuant to the Federal Trade Commission Act or the standards of unfairness and deception set forth and interpreted by the Federal Trade Commission or the federal courts. 501.203(3), Fla. Stat. (2005). Thus, if the claims of KC Leisure fall within these parameters, a cause of action may be stated against appellees. The purpose of the FDUTPA is [t]o protect the consuming public and legitimate business enterprises from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce." 501.202(2), Fla. Stat. (2005); see also Citibank (S.D.) N.A. v. Nat'l Arbitration Council, Inc., 2006 WL 2691528 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 19, 2006). FDUTPA makes unlawful unfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce. 501.204, Fla. Stat. (2005); see also Citibank. Instead of defining specific elements for an action under the statute, it directs the courts of Florida to give due consideration and great weight... to the interpretations of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C., section 45(a)(1). 501.204(2), Fla. Stat. (2005); see also Romano v. Motorola, Inc., 2007 WL 4199781 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 26, 2007); Davis v. Powertel, Inc., 776 So. 2d 971, 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), review denied 794 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 2001). 4

The Federal Trade Commission, pursuant to the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 41-58, promulgated a rule known as the Franchise Rule, that concerns disclosure requirements and prohibitions associated with franchising in 16 C.F.R. 436.1. The Franchise Rule requires a franchisor to provide prospective franchisees with a complete and accurate basic disclosure document containing twenty categories of information. 16 C.F.R. 436.1(a). The rule also requires a franchisor to provide prospective franchisees with an earnings claims document containing substantiating information with respect to earnings or profit representations made by the franchisor. 16 C.F.R. 436.1(b)(3), (c)(3). Finally, the failure of a franchisor to comply with these rules in connection with the manner that financial projections are presented to prospective purchasers, and in connection with the provision of certain required disclosures to purchasers, are considered to be unfair and deceptive trade practices under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. See 15 U.S.C. 45(a). Although not specifically identified in the statute, there are basically three elements that are required to be alleged to establish a claim pursuant to the FDUTPA: 1) a deceptive act or unfair practice; 2) causation; and 3) actual damages. Bookworld Trade, Inc. v. Daughters of St. Paul, Inc., 2007 WL 4124351 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 16, 2007). The claim made by KC Leisure in the first count of its Fourth Amended Complaint is that Relay Transportation violated the Franchise Rule by failing to give its prospective franchisee, KC Leisure, the requisite disclosure documents, and by providing it with an inaccurate and misleading financial projection. It further alleges that as a direct and proximate result of the deceptive and unfair trade practices KC Leisure, in reliance on this misinformation, was induced to pay $50,000 to purchase a franchise from Relay 5

Transportation, and incurred other expenses associated with the startup of a business, and was, accordingly, damaged. This appears to satisfy all of the elements necessary to state a cause of action under the FDUTPA. The trial court in dismissing the complaint drew no conclusions concerning whether the Franchise Rule was violated by Relay Transportation. Rather, when it granted the dismissal with prejudice, it found that the FDUTPA only applies to the corporate seller, Relay Transportation, and not to its individual shareholders or officers, such as Mr. Haber. Indeed, Mr. Haber continues to argue this position, albeit without citation to any case authorities. The case law demonstrates, however, that under the Federal Trade Commission Act an individual may be liable for corporate practices in violation of that statute once corporate liability is established. In order to prove individual liability it is necessary to show that an individual defendant actively participated in or had some measure of control over the corporation s deceptive practices. See, e.g., F.T.C. v. Standard Educ. Soc y, 302 U.S. 112 (1937); F.T.C. v. GEM Merchandizing Corp., 87 F.3d 466, 470 (11th Cir. 1996); F.T.C. v. Amy Travel Serv., Inc., 875 F.2d 564, 573 (7th Cir. 1989). In addition, to hold a corporate officer liable for monetary restitution, a plaintiff is also required to establish that the defendant had or should have had knowledge or awareness of the misrepresentations. Amy Travel Serv., 875 F.2d at 574. Similarly, it has long been the law in Florida that in order to proceed against an individual using a FDUTPA violation theory an aggrieved party must allege that the individual was a direct participant in the improper dealings. See Anden v. Litinsky, 472 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); General Dev. Corp. v. Catlin, 139 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 3d 6

DCA 1962); see also Rollins, Inc. v. Heller, 454 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (noting that it is unnecessary to pierce the corporate veil because the individual defendant was a direct participant in the dealings), review denied, 461 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 1985). More recently in Aboujaoude v. Poinciana Development Company II, 509 F. Supp. 2d 1266, (S.D. Fla. 2007), the court commented: FDUTPA makes unlawful [u]nfair methods of competition or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. 501.204(1), Fla. Stat. (1981). In order to proceed against an individual for a violation of FDUTPA, a plaintiff must allege that the individual was a direct participant in the dealings. Id. at 1276-77 (citations omitted). Thus, once the liability of Relay Transportation is established, Mr. Haber is properly named as a defendant, provided it is alleged that he was a direct participant in the actions that constituted a violation of the FDUTPA. As KC Leisure has, indeed, made the requisite allegations, the count states a cause of action against Mr. Haber. More particularly, the allegations of the final complaint against Mr. Haber accuse him, among other things, of having actual knowledge of the violations of the Franchise Rule that the corporation was involved in and intentionally electing not only to ignore those requirements, but to draft documents to be given to KC Leisure that were specifically known by him to be violative of the Franchise Rule. The complaint alleged that the defendants, including Mr. Haber, collectively and unanimously cooked up the scheme of providing a license, rather than the bargained-for franchise, so that the requirements could be evaded prior to KC Leisure s turning over of the $50,000 franchise fee. Finally, he is alleged to have assisted in the preparation of certain pro 7

forma financial documents and spreadsheets with full knowledge that they were inaccurate. It seems clear, therefore, that KC Leisure has pled a violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act, and hence the FDUTPA, by Relay Transportation and has stated a cause of action against Mr. Haber, as well. The trial court s holding, that the FDUTPA clearly focus[es] on imposing liability only on sellers and not their shareholders or individuals who act for the seller, is not supported by the case law in general, as we have noted above, or by Batlemento, the case cited by the trial court in its order, in particular. The trial court s reliance on Batlemento for the proposition that the FDUTPA imposes liability only on the corporate entity but not on the individuals involved in purported misdeeds is misplaced. First, the holding in Batlemento to the effect that the Florida Sale of Business Opportunities Act, sections 559.80-.815, Florida Statutes (1983) ( FSBOA ), does not apply to the sale of an ongoing restaurant business, has little relevance to a claim involving purported misrepresentations under the federal statute and rules in connection with the sale of a franchise to open a new business. Second, Batlemento does not address the issue of personal liability. The FSBOA is only referenced in the first count to reflect that Relay Transportation attempted to comply with section 559.802, Florida Statutes (2005), so as to qualify for an exemption under that statute. That Relay Transportation complied with the FSBOA does not eviscerate the claim of KC Leisure that it violated the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Franchise Rule. The franchise exemption under the FSBOA does not compel a finding of a franchise exemption under the FDUTPA. 8

We now turn to the second count of the fourth amended complaint. In this count KC Leisure seeks to state a cause of action for fraudulent practices by alleging that Mr. Haber violated the Florida Franchise Act 3 by intentionally misrepresenting the prospects of success of the franchise that KC Leisure thought it was buying. Mr. Haber, of course, was an officer and shareholder of Relay Transportation when these actions were alleged to have occurred. The trial court dismissed this count with prejudice because it found no specific allegations that Mr. Haber personally participated in the conduct that was put forth as a violation of the statute. The court concluded that Plaintiff cannot possibly establish liability by reason of Defendant s mere relationship to the corporation without alleging that he also personally participated in the fraud described. Because the sufficiency of a complaint is a matter of law, we review the dismissal de novo. Siegle v. Progressive Consumers Ins. Co., 819 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 2002). We begin by observing that when presented with a motion to dismiss, a trial court is required to treat the factual allegations of the complaint as true and to consider those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. Id. at 734-35 (citations omitted). Section 817.416(2), Florida Statutes (2005), reads in pertinent part as follows: (a) It is unlawful, when selling or establishing a franchise... for any person: 1. Intentionally to misrepresent the prospects or chances for success of a proposed or existing franchise or distributorship; or 2. Intentionally to misrepresent, by failure to disclose or otherwise, the known required total investment for such franchise or distributorship. 3 817.416, Fla. Stat. (2005). 9

In count II of the complaint, KC Leisure alleged that Mr. Haber participated in the development of pro forma spreadsheets regarding Relay Transportation specifically to provide to KC Leisure and had actual knowledge of its contents and omissions. The pro forma purported to show the anticipated costs and revenues in the startup and operation of the franchise being sold to KC Leisure. The complaint alleged, as well, that the pro forma spreadsheets were based on conjecture and speculation without any substantive research, which resulted in the document containing unsubstantiated and misleading representations. It further asserts that Mr. Haber and the other defendants authorized the delivery of the misleading document to KC Leisure. Finally, the count alleged that the defendants, including Mr. Haber, misrepresented the known total investment for the franchise, all of which misled the appellant into handing over the $50,000 fee and investing money in the franchise operation. It appears to us that KC Leisure has sufficiently pled the requirements of section 817.416 to state a cause of action. A complaint must allege ultimate facts which, if established by competent evidence, would support a decree granting the relief sought by the pleader. See Doyle v. Flex, 210 So. 2d 493, 494-95 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968). There are ample allegations contained in count II of personal participation which, if true, would support a judgment for damages against Mr. Haber. Accordingly, we reverse the dismissal of this count as well. Although the complaint filed in this case is rather confusing, it does state the causes of action discussed. Thus, we reverse the dismissal with prejudice of the fourth amended complaint and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings. REVERSED and REMANDED. 10

PLEUS and EVANDER, JJ., concur. 11